What's your "controversial" Star Trek opinion?

[JRTStarlight]

Why? I only quoted the part that was relevant to the subject matter. The rest of the conversation, which you quoted, is still on the same subject. Picard never addresses any other subject. He only expounds on how he expects that subject to be handled & why. He elaborates

"The High Council seems to agree with you. They consider the matter to be closed. I do not" The "Matter"... which the High Council considers closed, is the killing of Duras. There is no other matter that they were considering. From that remark, it is clear, however, that it's not a closed subject as it applies to Picard & Starfleet. They are still addressing that matter, right then & there. It's the only matter they're addressing.

The "matter" is not about killing somebody, but putting his personal crap ahead of the Federation's crap. The lecture isn't about killing people, you see, or about murder, or the ethics of what is legal there or illegal elsewhere, but about not being able to put your family crap, or your cultural crap, or your religious crap, aside and taking care of Starfleet's crap or the Federation's crap first and foremost. Worf didn't do that. So the portion of the quote you left out showed what it was Picard was concerned with, and it wasn't about murder, in general, but about putting your personal crap ahead of Starfleet's crap.

He did however say that he has a reprimand for not adhering Starfleet protocol as it applies to the subject at hand (Refer back to the 1st part of this post)

Right, and that's not about murder or killing. It was about stepping outside the expectations, a protocol about putting personal stuff aside when it is in conflict with orders or stated mission goals.

But none of that is actually mentioned either. The subject they're discussing is the killing of Duras, & you are saying that somehow the reprimand is for some other unmentioned infractions. That's just imaginary

What seems imaginary to me is either believing those things I stated aren't important just because they didn't explicitly mention them right then or there, or worse, the very topic Picard was lecturing Worf on was unimportant or unrelated. The topic was not about murder or killing. It was about putting your personal crap aside when it conflicts with Starfleet's expectations or mission requirements.

And I agree, which is why all this debate began with me saying Worf should be expelled from Starfleet, & that Picard was wrong for placing such a minor punishment on the violation. Frankly, it's Picard's fault that Worf still doesn't "get it" by the time he gets reamed for a similar infraction on DS9.

And I disagree one should be punished simply because their legal actions were contrary to the captain's own cultural norms. That's like Picard saying, well, Worf, though your actions were legal, they are contrary to my human values or my cultural point of view, which are clearly better and superior to Klingon values, since humans are always right about everything. I'm now going to tell you I respect every crewmembers' individual social and cultural values, but I don't mean it, and if they are in conflict with my superior moral values, I'm going to reprimand them, even if what they did was legal.

And instead of being Picard's fault, it was Picard's correct action that gave Worf every chance to learn from his mistakes and make his own choices in the future – instead of saying one strike and you're out, even if what you did was legal. It was also the correct system that demonstrated that Worf is likely to put his own cultural shit ahead of Starfleet's, since he did it twice, and they should not trust that guy to be in charge of something so powerful as a starship. After all, that would mean they knowingly put all that power into the hands of somebody who would likely use it for his personal reasons, even when they were contrary to what Starfleet would want. Then they would be at fault there. It's still not too ridged, like Worf, strike two and you're out of Starfleet. He's still good material, a good officer, but proven he isn't captain material. Only one in a million are, but that's no reason to deny the other 999,999 a chance to serve in starfleet.

Picard is obviously given a lot of leeway with his officers & how they are punished, & he offered Worf a 2nd chance, on the understanding that he knows that it is an unacceptable act to kill people for personal or cultural reasons (Which is why he addressed those cultural reasons as being no excuse)

I seriously doubt Picard is given such leeway that if Worf murdered Riker, Picard could excuse it, or if he murdered anybody on board the Enterprise, that Picard could excuse it. Granted, Captains have a great deal of discretion, but not that much. The fact Worf did not commit murder (a legal definition, not a moral one) does allow Picard to not have to deal with that. If anything, that conversation went on and Picard then said Worf should reclaim his honor. Do you seriously think Picard is angry with Worf for murder, but then still thinks he has "honor" to reclaim? No way. It's not about killing Duras – it's all about putting his personal shit first.

I think it's a bad choice by Picard, but there's no doubt what the choice he made was. The language is clear

I think it was the right choice, the one that actually respects other cultures' values and laws instead of just pretending one's own aren't always innately superior, and all other cultural values different from your own aren't inferior, but in actual practice, thinking they are and arrogantly acting as if your values and laws are always better than everybody else's. Also, it makes the system work where one mistake isn't instantly punished by a dishonorable discharge from service, let alone being locked up, despite not having broken any laws.

 

[Mojochi]

The Klingons consider the matter closed. What matter are they considering closed, which Picard does not? That matter. You're ignoring that matter despite the fact that is what Picard specifically addresses. Once you do away with what he is actually talking about, you can make the rest of his speech about anything

 

[JRTStarlight]

The "matter" is the entire incident. The Klingons consider the matter closed. That is, there is nothing more to be done about it. So no action vs. Worf, no decision necessary from Picard as to leadership, no more reason to stay together - the matter is closed so it's time to part company. They do.

Picard, however, does not feel the matter is closed - there is still stuff about it to address. But it's not about how Worf murdered somebody, or what Picard or the Federation feels about murder or killing. Then what is it about? He specifically tells Worf. There are 13 different cultures represented on board, and I respect all their beliefs, but everyone here is supposed to put Starfleet's crap ahead of their own personal shit - be it cultural, religious, family, or whatever - it takes a back seat to Starfleet's, the Federation's, or the mission's needs. You failed to do that. You get a reprimand for that.

There is no reason to bring up the other 13 cultures if the matter is just about murder or what was legal or illegal. You seem to be acting like the culture difference lecture was unimportant and the only matter to consider is the murder of Duras. You also say you would have Worf drummed out of the service for doing something legal. You seem to say since you object to murder, everyone else should, too, and no culture should every accept a good reason for killing. That is, you seem to want to impose your values and beliefs on Worf, or think Picard should do it for you, and he was wrong to think or act otherwise.

The "matter" is all about putting your own crap ahead of the mission's, Starfleet's, or the Federation's. I don't see how else to fairly interpret that and still have the culture lecture make sense, or Picard still feel Worf is an honorable man and the time has come to reclaim that honor. That makes no sense to me to think he's really a murdering SOB who should be drummed out of the service, possibly locked up for murder, or thinking a murderer has honor, but I like him, so a reprimand will suffice.

 

[Mojochi]

The "matter" is the entire incident. The Klingons consider the matter closed. That is, there is nothing more to be done about it. So no action vs. Worf.

No action vs Worf for what? What did Worf do aboard that Klingon ship, for which no action is being taken, but for which Picard IS taking action? What action might Starfleet suspect others would want to grieve about this, but because the Klingons don't grieve such things, they aren't?

& to the point of why would Picard be so wrong to only penalize Worf so minimally for murder? Because he sympathizes with him. He even said so "I understand your pain". Let's face it. Duras was a traitorous murderer. That he came to a bloody end is nothing to shed a tear over. That a Starfleet officer was the one to bring that death upon him, unilaterally, is not acceptable, but Picard sympathizes with why he'd want to do so, & in feeling that way, he shows leniency

It's like a woman hunting down a man who'd previously raped her, & killing him. That is still a crime for which she can be convicted, but I imagine there are many judges who might show leniency in sentencing such a person, because they sympathize

 

[JRTStarlight]

No action vs. Worf for what? What did Worf do aboard that Klingon ship, for which no action is being taken, but for which Picard IS taking action? What action might Starfleet suspect others would want to grieve about this, but because the Klingons don't grieve such things, they aren't?

First, one aspect within the larger "matter" doesn't mean every aspect within that "matter" must address that and only that single aspect. I think it's pretty clear when Picard brings up the cultural lecture that he has shifted gears and is now talking about something else.

However, legally, if the Klingons wanted to press the matter, an argument could be made Starfleet allowed Worf to use the Enterprise's resources (in this case, the transporter) to gain access to their ship and kill Duras, for which Starfleet is legally responsible. Starfleet might hold Picard responsible since he's responsible for the actions of the crew. All sorts of shit might hit the fan, but only if the Klingons complained and pressed the matter. They didn't, and they won't, since what Worf did was perfectly acceptable behavior as far as they were concerned, so they considered the matter (of Duras' death) closed, or anything Worf did, closed, or even the succession to the "throne," closed. There is nothing more to be said about it. Any of it. As far as the Klingons are concerned, the entire matter is closed.

Picard, however, had more to say about it (it being any number of things about the whole incident). He didn't appreciate Worf breaking the rules like that and potentially putting him and Starfleet in such a bad position that could have easily come back to bite not Worf, but them in the ass. It only happened because Worf put his own shit ahead of Starfleet's shit, or his captain's expectation, etc. For this, Worf gets a reprimand.

The reason a captain is responsible for his/her crewmembers' actions is because theoretically they should be able to control the situation. Picard's biggest mistake was probably not having enough security men on Duras and his men to control the situation. In a way, K'Ehleyr's death is Picard's fault, which led to Duras murdering her, which led to Worf killing him in a legal duel of honor, as is the right of any klingon if another klingon kill's their mate. So in a way, Duras' death is Picard's fault. And since the Federation put Picard there, in a way, Duras' death is the Federation's fault. Luckily, the Klingons are not particularly litigious and they consider the matter closed.

& to the point of why would Picard be so wrong to only penalize Worf so minimally for murder? Because he sympathizes with him. He even said so "I understand your pain". Let's face it. Duras was a traitorous murderer. That he came to a bloody end is nothing to shed a tear over. That a Starfleet officer was the one to bring that death upon him, unilaterally, is not acceptable, but Picard sympathizes with why he'd want to do so, & in feeling that way, he shows leniency

It is so flat out wrong to say, or keep saying, Duras was murdered. It is simply factually untrue. Murder is a legal definition – the unlawful taking of (human, or we may assume, sentient) life. You can be more subjective about the morality or immorality of it, but not the legality or illegality of it. It happened on Klingon "soil," according to Klingon customs, and under Klingon law. What Worf did was legal. To suggest otherwise is to take the position that Federation laws either do, or should apply everywhere since, well, you know, they are always right and those other subhuman cultures don't know shit. Don't go there. In short, Worf did not murder Duras. He killed him in a legal duel.

So Picard is not in a position to discipline Worf about murdering Duras since Worf didn't murder him. He's not even in a position to discipline him on moral ground, unless he takes the position his moral point of view is inherently superior to another culture's POV. Picard won't go there. He said he won't.

But what can he do? He can point out how personal needs or desires must take a back seat when they conflict with Federation needs or mission requirements, etc. Worf put his personal shit ahead of those. For that he gets a reprimand. It is that aspect of "the matter" Picard didn't considered closed yet.

It's like a woman hunting down a man who'd previously raped her, & killing him. That is still a crime for which she can be convicted, but I imagine there are many judges who might show leniency in sentencing such a person, because they sympathize

It's not like that since the woman is breaking the law. Worf wasn't. I suppose if the rapist was outside the jurisdiction of the authorities, perhaps in a place where it was legal to kill somebody for revenge, then it would be sort of like that. But even here, Worf didn't just walk in a room and blow Duras away with a phaser for revenge. He challenged him to a duel. Furthermore, Duras accepted. Your analogy falls flat in several very important ways.

As for a judge showing leniency, they might give the minimal sentence, like if the rule of law says 5 to life, he could give her 5 years, and that would be fine. But to suggest the system is such that for premeditated murder you can get anything from a small reprimand, to death, is a bit much, and to suggest Picard has the rights of a judge would also be in error. You have stretched the bounds of the captain's discretion to ridiculous lengths in your attempt to find an example, IMO. Picard does not have the right or discretion to excuse murder, if that's what he thought Worf was guilty of. But he doesn't think that. He even thinks Worf is an honorable man, and while he can appreciate the strong desire to put his shit ahead of the mission's needs, Starfleet officers are supposed to be able to do that for the greater good. Worf didn't. Therefore, he gets a reprimand.

 

[Mojochi]

Worf is not breaking Klingon law. He is violating Starfleet regulations. THEY are the ones that consider it an illegal killing. He serves them. It is illegal for them. Hell, interfering in the internal politics of that world is even illegal for them, & he did that too

Picard only brings up the cultural aspect because the cultural aspect of this, that applies to Klingons, is that killing is legal. Killing is still the subject even in that portion of the discussion. He didn't change the subject, because that might require actually mentioning some other specific subject for which he is reprimanding him. Even if it is some general reprimand that's somehow about an all-encompassing "Conduct unbecoming" charge, like you're claiming, it STILL includes the killing thing because that's what he is talking about, even before this supposed area you believe he has diverged. He should not be killing people for personal reasons as a Starfleet officer. How does someone who watches Star Trek overlook what ought to be a staple of the progressive values of that entire show? Killing = bad, unless you have no other option. There's numerous times when that value is put forth on Star Trek, especially on TNG

 

[Nerys Myk]

All films and series are canon, even the ones I don't like.

 

[JRTStarlight]

Worf is not breaking Klingon law. He is violating Starfleet regulations. THEY are the ones that consider it an illegal killing. He serves them. It is illegal for them. Hell, interfering in the internal politics of that world is even illegal for them, & he did that too.

Then so was Picard interferring when he took the job. And are you making that up, or do you have a canon source that states murder is a violation of Starfleet regulations? That seems odd – regulations are not generally about civil matters. And you (and maybe even others) are imagining what Worf violated since they didn't specifically say. What was it? A Starfleet Order – a Starfleet Regulation – A General Order – A Directive – A guideline – some protocol – a principle – or not Starfleet at all but general Federation law about behavior within the Federation - there is a sea of possibilities. Our best clue as to exactly what Worf did wrong comes from the fact Picard gave him a lecture on how members from other cultures put their personal desires and requirements aside when Starfleet's needs run contrary to those, so that is what Worf must have done. But it seems odd to make a generalized argument like that if he specifically just meant murder or killing a person. Why be so general if it is just about murder?

Picard only brings up the cultural aspect because the cultural aspect of this, that applies to Klingons, is that killing is legal.

Picard and Kirk and many others have killed, and by the boatloads. All killing is not murder. All killing is not illegal. Self-defense, for example, usually ranks right up near the top of an acceptable reason to kill such that is not considered illegal or murder. War is another. Of course I believe it is true Starfleet would consider killing in a duel of honor to be murder when on or within Federation territory, but unless you are saying Picard and the Federation are saying their laws should apply everywhere (which they aren't), it is very wrong to say Worf murdered Duras. Unless you are saying Starfleet insist you refrain from countless activities, even when not on duty, or on Federation soil, or in Federation space, I think it is unreasonable to expect them to do that, particularly when the local culture says it is fine, it is expected, is it legal, and maybe it is even required. But Picard, hell, he'll ignore the local laws if it suits him and possibly even ruin the local culture. I've seen him do it. Maybe he'll save that punk Wesley Crusher's life, but maybe the local population will riot, fight about the laws, fight about welcoming strangers any more, and maybe thousands will die. So what? It's not anyone he personally cares about.

Killing is still the subject even in that portion of the discussion. He didn't change the subject, because that might require actually mentioning some other specific subject for which he is reprimanding him.

But he did mention a new subject. He mentioned 13 different planets from which other crewmembers aboard have come, with different sets of cultural values. He didn't say, "And on all 13, killing is murder and they have all agreed not to murder or kill." Instead, he generalized the discussion. Why? If, as you insist, it is all about murder and killing and nothing else, why generalize the discussion? You're deluding yourself if you don't think he changed the subject from just the specific killing of Duras to a more general, all encompassing topic of cultural differences and duty to put the personal stuff aside when necessary.

Even if it is some general reprimand that's somehow about an all-encompassing "Conduct unbecoming" charge, like you're claiming, it STILL includes the killing thing because that's what he is talking about, even before this supposed area you believe he has diverged.

Supposed? Picard brings up cultural difference, and he claims he respects them, too. Didn't you hear that part? And which ones? He respects all 13 sets of values, but only because they all say killing is always murder? That's nonsense. That's not respecting differences - that's only respecting similarities or identical beliefs. Even the Earth set or beliefs on murder and killing probably doesn't say all killing is murder or illegal or bad. If he wants to talk about killing and murder and nothing else, he was an idiot for talking about general cultural differences and how one should set those aside when in conflict with Starfleet's requirements. He should have said, "Killing is bad, mmm kay? And you killed, so you get a reprimand for killing. You want to stay in Starfleet? You do? O.K. Don't kill anymore – dismissed." There would be none of this B.S. lecture about setting aside general cultural differences, or how he respects those other values. And I call it B.S. if it's just a sham and he only wants to impose his personal (or Starfleet's personal) POV on killing, but can't without admitting he and Starfleet don't really give a rat's ass about other culture's POVs and are more than willing to impose their will, their laws, their beliefs, or their morality on the entire galaxy, despite their pretense they actually respect the differences.

He should not be killing people for personal reasons as a Starfleet officer. How does someone who watches Star Trek overlook what ought to be a staple of the progressive values of that entire show? Killing = bad, unless you have no other option. There's numerous times when that value is put forth on Star Trek, especially on TNG

Well, how about this? Imposing your POV on others = bad. Saying you respect their values when you clearly don't = bad. Killing plenty of people yourself but saying you were always justified or had no other choice but others never had a good reason = hypocritically bad. Allowing an entire civilization to die when you could have saved them but didn't since saving them would violate the prime directive = bad.

Or this = there are often higher truths that come first. For example, we dislike murder, but if another culture says it's O.K. in some cases, imposing our POV on them would be worse than murder.

And there's more.

Not killing all the Borg for self defense but allowing them to go on to kill millions = bad. Arrogantly shun Q instead of kissing his ass and lose many crewmembers = bad. Save 600 people who aren't even natives to a planet but let 800 million go without the life saving benefits = bad. Turn down Q's offer to grant one wish, thus not using it to save billions, or whatever = bad. Protect the rights of a mass murdering crystalline entity that thrives on eating people, willing to let it live and kill thousands more = bad. Stupidly not going back further in time to prevent a star's destruction, the Enterprise's destruction, and Kirk's death, but cut it so close so all that still happens = bad.

But one great problem you really need to address is that fact if Picard and Starfleet really have this problem with murder or killing, how a paltry reprimand is adequate. In fact, I think you say your main problem here is it wasn't adequate – Picard acted wrongly, and Worf should have been drummed out of the service for murder, and possibly lock up for life, or even put to death. (The death penalty perhaps another exception to killing that would be both legal and not murder, in many people's opinions).

And I say if your assertions that Worf murdered Duras is true, or Starfleet considers it murder regardless of what another culture calls it is true, or where it occurs, they should have done exactly that. But they didn't. My conclusion – they don't consider it murder, and they don't insist you adhere to a narrow set of actions even when off duty or outside Federation jurisdiction. If the Federation or Picard really thinks Worf is a murderer, there is no way he should be allowed to stay in Starfleet, and no way he shouldn't be locked up, tried for murder, and since the facts are not in dispute, convicted and sentenced for murder. But he wasn't. So who is engaging in the greater fiction here? I say it's you.

I take what was actually said and done and try to make sense of it. Letting Worf off with a small reprimand for murder does not make sense. Talking about cultural differences there does not make sense if it's just about killing or murder. But he got a reprimand, so what he did was legal, and the Feds couldn't fault him for that. And Picard did lecture him about cultural differences, so that was actually pertinent to what Worf did wrong - in the general sense and not just about the difference in attitude about killing in a duel. Worf's general actions "unbecoming an officer" (not said, but you might assume) must be about the cultural difference thing and putting his personal shit ahead of Starfleet's crap or the mission's requirements, and not about murder, or getting away with it. That is the only thing that make sense to me.

Your solution is to just assume Picard lets a murderer walk and he made a mistake, or did that, because he likes Worf? And what part of progressive values shown numerous times leads you to believe that would happen?

 

[Mojochi]

Ok, I am literally having to defend the idea that killing people is wrong. I'm done. You win. Let's celebrate by going out & killing some people. Apparently it's all the rage on Qu-Nos, so who are we to tell ourselves different?

Edit: In fact, I'll go further & say that I don't respect the Kilngon culture. I think it's absurd to be expected to respect a culture that supports & employs that kind of barbarism, & the idea that it should be respected, because it's somehow worse to not respect it is just as absurd. I don't respect cultures that marry off their 10 year old daughters. I wouldn't respect a culture that ate their young. It's that simple & I'm pretty sure Star Trek gets that

 

[The Old Mixer]

All films and series are canon, even the ones I don't like.

Canon is a wreath of pretty flowers...which smell bad.

 

[JRTStarlight]

Ok, I am literally having to defend the idea that killing people is wrong.

That's not really what you were defending, IIRC, but that Picard acted inappropriately, or Worf should have been drummed out of the service or arrested for murder or something like that. At no point did I say I felt it was O.K. to kill anybody you want, at any time, in any place, for any reason, as the opposite of your above statement might suggest – killing people is right. But I do say it is not only O.K. to kill sometimes, it's actually sometimes better than the alternative. Self defense is but one example, though I'm sure I can dig up some people who will even insist they would rather be murdered than kill somebody in self defense since they're just that much better and holier than everybody else. I'm just not one of those. I've even met some dimwit who insisted meat was murder, and she said even if she were stranded on an island with water, grass, a bull, and a few children, she wouldn't kill the bull to feed the children but would rather they all starve. What a fool.

Killing Duras probably prevented war with the Federation and prevented countless deaths, but by all means, let's just concentrate on that one life and destroy another while doing it. Quite frankly, self defense and the defense of others might be a good reason to kill. Killing a murderer who is beyond the law might be another - the idea one should never take the law into their own hands only applies where it is reasonable to expect the law to take care of it. There, the law would not. But I digress.

I'm done. You win. Let's celebrate by going out & killing some people. Apparently it's all the rage on Qu-Nos, so who are we to tell ourselves different?

I win? What did I win? Sarcastic and dishonest remarks that suggest though your logic or reasoning fails, you still won't admit it, but it's still my fault and you're happy to suggest I'm just a horrible and immoral person who celebrates by murdering people for no particular reason other than to celebrate? That's not much of a prize. There are rules about not killing even on Qu-Nos, but you just toss all those out to malign me publically and suggest I love killing – I don't even need a reason. Horseshit.

Edit: In fact, I'll go further & say that I don't respect the Klingon culture.

Obviously. And I suspect if you had the power, you would force your will on anybody and everybody since, well, you know best, apparently, and you're never wrong about anything. Good thing there are usually many obstacles that would keep, for example, the captain's chair beyond the reach of people like you.

It's bad enough other alien races often accuse the Federation and humans of a type of arrogance that humans think they are always right and everybody else who thinks differently is just plain wrong, but you are actually doing it here. I think the Federation, for the most part, though with some few exceptions, actually stands behind their lofty words, and there is wisdom in respecting other cultures, even when they have different values, or wisdom in embracing the Vulcan Edic, or wisdom in adopting other similar beliefs that, by and large, through their honest application, will probably save countless more lives than the relative few that would otherwise be lost.

I think it's absurd to be expected to respect a culture that supports & employs that kind of barbarism, & the idea that it should be respected, because it's somehow worse to not respect it is just as absurd. I don't respect cultures that marry off their 10 year old daughters. I wouldn't respect a culture that ate their young. It's that simple & I'm pretty sure Star Trek gets that.

I'm pretty sure Star Trek says otherwise with the Prime Directive and its countless other rules and regulations. You spend so much time worrying about one life, you trash the larger issue that might lead to hundreds or thousands of more deaths as your try to impose your will on others by force, or non-cooperation. Or you lose the countless opportunities to work together on the common ground you may find since, well, they have this one thing you disagree with, so they're just a bunch of murdering bastards and you won't work with them, even if doing so might avoid a war, or cure a plague, or feed millions. Screw 'em if they don't agree with you on everything.

No, I'm pretty sure Star Trek fully embraces the Larger Picture that you seem to be missing.

Of course I also don't believe one human should always respect another human's beliefs or practices since they, at least, have common ground, common needs, common history, and far more in common than they likely have in differences. It's possible to reach a clearer majority common belief there that would be difficult if not impossible to reach so readily with alien cultures.

While you don't have to respect everything they say, or do, or believe, the imposition of your will on them through force does suggest a degree of arrogance and hypocrisy as you fully reject even the Golden Rule. I mean, would you want them to impose their different views on you through force? If not, you might see the wisdom in the Golden Rule in not imposing your views on them through force, even if you have the necessary force to do it.

Now I don't think respecting another culture's views always means agreeing with them. It doesn't have to mean that. It just means you respect them enough to allow them to have their POV and not try to impose your will on them. If you don't want to work with them, that's your business, but even if they killed hundreds every year in honor duels, I'd still work with them if it meant I could save thousands more, and I would trust, in time, while working together that my belief system and values might take the lead by example, and not through the hypocritical application of military force. But that's just me. Oh, and probably Picard. And people like that. IMO.

 

[The Old Mixer]

I win? What did I win? Sarcastic and dishonest remarks that suggest though your logic or reasoning fails, you still won't admit it, but it's still my fault and you're happy to suggest I'm just a horrible and immoral person who celebrates by murdering people for no particular reason other than to celebrate? That's not much of a prize. There are rules about not killing even on Qu-Nos, but you just toss all those out to malign me publically and suggest I love killing – I don't even need a reason. Horseshit.

Obviously. And I suspect if you had the power, you would force your will on anybody and everybody since, well, you know best, apparently, and you're never wrong about anything. Good thing there are usually many obstacles that would keep, for example, the captain's chair beyond the reach of people like you.

Alright, this is getting needlessly personal, crossing the line between post and poster. As far as I can tell, @Mojochi has effectively withdrawn from the argument, so I'd suggest letting it go.

 

[JRTStarlight]

One does not "withdraw" from an argument by suggesting the opposition is just an immoral person who likes killing people in order to celebrate. One could withdraw by simply not posting on that subject, of if they still feel the need to say more, saying simply we have to "agree to disagree" and letting it go then. But I suppose even that's just my opinion.

 

[The Old Mixer]

One does not "withdraw" from an argument by suggesting the opposition is just an immoral person who likes killing people in order to celebrate. One could withdraw by simply not posting on that subject, of if they still feel the need to say more, saying simply we have to "agree to disagree" and letting it go then. But I suppose even that's just my opinion.

I'm not looking to argue or debate with you, I'm here to steer you away from hard Warning territory. Comments to PM if you must, but there's really nothing to discuss here.

 

[Boomstick]

I love how this thread acknowledge potential controversy from the get-go to illustrate that it was made for the lols, yet everyone can't help but set their phasers to righteous indignation.

My "controversial" Trek opinion is I think Lwaxana Troi is funny, even on DS9.
Everyone seems to love Majel, but they rarely positively review a Lwaxana episode.

 

[Mojochi]

I love how this thread acknowledge potential controversy from the get-go to illustrate that it was made for the lols, yet everyone can't help but set their phasers to righteous indignation.

My "controversial" Trek opinion is I think Lwaxana Troi is funny, even on DS9.
Everyone seems to love Majel, but they rarely positively review a Lwaxana episode.

Actually, I never cared much for Majel. She seems like a lovely person, but as an actress, she is very mediocre, & I can't get around the obviousness of her longstanding affiliation with the series(es?) being largely due to nepotism... Which I suppose is another controversial opinion of mine lol